| Have I missed the feedback from the users? There should be some quotes from team members who liked the change. Their mentioning that they start being data-driven for internal tools suggests that they start treating developers like cattle and not pets. >Driving down Time In Review would not only make people more satisfied with their code review process, it would also increase the productivity of every engineer at Meta. This hasn't been tested. "The average Time In Review for all diffs dropped 7 percent" - they have verified that they changed the left side of the equation, the review time, but they haven't checked the outcome, the productivity. Overall it doesn't seem like they have checked if their changes have negative side effects. Likewise >The choice of reviewers that an author selects for a diff is very important. Diff authors want reviewers who are going to review their code well, quickly, and who are experts for the code their diff touches. doesn't match >A 1.5 percent increase in diffs reviewed within 24 hours and an increase in top three recommendation accuracy (how often the actual reviewer is one of the top three suggested) from below 60 percent to nearly 75 percent. They have shown that the people they nudge are more likely to do a code review. But are they the experts who do the review well? The 1.5 percent in reviewed diffs could also be jitter. *edit: Meta could extend the review process. There doesn't seem to be a review process for the review team. If they don't like to review their changes, or if they cannot find suitable reviewers, how are they qualified to role out their changes to the software development team? |
I think there's assumption that people won't just rubberstamp significant diffs to code they don't own. When submitting a change to another team's project if the reviewers that are suggested aren't actually the right person they are more likely to know the right person who should review it and they can manually add that person.
>The 1.5 percent in reviewed diffs could also be jitter.
Facebook / Meta has tools for measuring the effects of changes and seeing if they are statistically significant. Yes, it could still be jitter but without them giving more data about the experiment we can't tell what the chance of it being due to chance is.
>There doesn't seem to be a review process for the review team
There isn't a review team. Anyone can review a change.